MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283011202 · doi:10.3390/foods11121789

3D Food Printing Applications Related to Dysphagia: A Narrative Review

2022· review· en· W4283011202 on OpenAlexaff
Tim O Lorenz, Michèle M. Iskandar, Vahid Baeghbali, Michael Ngadi, Stan Kubow

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysphagiaMedicineChokingPopulationMalnutritionFood scienceEnvironmental healthSurgeryBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dysphagia is a condition in which the swallowing mechanism is impaired. It is most often a result of a stroke. Dysphagia has serious consequences, including choking and aspiration pneumonia, which can both be fatal. The population that is most affected by it is the elderly. Texture-modified diets are part of the treatment plan for dysphagia. This bland, restrictive diet often contributes to malnutrition in patients with dysphagia. Both energy and protein intake are of concern, which is especially worrying, as it affects the elderly. Making texture-modified diets more appealing is one method to increase food intake. As a recent technology, 3D food printing has great potential to increase the appeal of textured foods. With extrusion-based printing, both protein and vegetable products have already been 3D printed that fit into the texture categories provided by the International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative. Another exciting advancement is 4D food printing which could make foods even more appealing by incorporating color change and aroma release following a stimulus. The ultra-processed nature of 3D-printed foods is of nutritional concern since this affects the digestion of the food and negatively affects the gut microbiome. There are mitigating strategies to this issue, including the addition of hydrocolloids that increase stomach content viscosity and the addition of probiotics. Therefore, 3D food printing is an improved method for the production of texture-modified diets that should be further explored.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.385 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207